High Court Of Madras
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. S.L. Chitale
Sections WT 25(2), Explanation
Asst. Year 1978-79, 1979-80
R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ.
TC Nos. 1530 & 1531 of 1984
22nd November, 2000
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The question referred to us in this case is similar to the one that was considered by this Court in the case of CIT vs. M. N. Sulaiman (1998) 145 CTR (Mad) 297 : (1999) 238 ITR 139 (Mad) : TC S57.4436. That was a case under the IT Act while these cases are under the WT Act. However, the scope of the revisional powers of the CIT under the two Acts is similar.
For the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80, the wealth-tax assessment was made by the WTO without waiting for the receipt of the valuation report in respect of the house property owned by the assessee even though the report had been called for. The report subsequently received showed a valuationâ which was three times the value that had been adopted by the assessee and which had been incorporated in the assessment year. The CIT being of the view that the order was prejudicial to the Revenue, called for the records, and the records were examined by him. At the time of examination, it contained the valuation report which had been received after the assessment. The CIT after due notice to the assessee relied on the valuation report and revised the assessment. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal set aside that order of the CIT holding that he should not have taken note of the valuation report which was received subsequent to the date of the assessment.
This Court in the case of M.N. Sulaiman (supra), has held in similar facts and circumstances arising under the IT Act that the valuation report submitted subsequent to the assessment, which report had been called for prior to the assessment, and which report formed part of the record before the CIT was a report which was required to be taken into account by the CIT for the purpose of deciding as to whether the assessment made was prejudicial to the Revenue, and the CIT was required to examine that report as part of the record before him though it was not part of the record that was before the ITO. The term “record” under s. 25(2) of the WT Act has been defined in Explanation, cl. (b), as including records relating to any proceeding under that Act at the time of examination by the CIT. The report relied on, though not disputed, was available at the time of examination. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
[Citation : 252 ITR 586]